Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

itcommunity.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#671

Post by laserdancepony »

amluto wrote: post #334
kgwgk wrote: post #69

I don’t think I had seen those before: tarball [use instead: tar archive] While the term refers to an archive that has been created with the tar command, it can be negatively associated with the pejorative term tarbaby. whitespace [use instead: empty space] Assigns value connotations based on color (white = good), an act which is subconsciously racialized. Some of the “solutions” are funny: Hispanic [use instead: Lat…

Surely tarball comes from tar, which is short for “tape archive”, which has nothing to do with the goo left behind from pyrolysis or with its color. Apparently whoever made this list doesn’t understand the purpose of the tar command :) (Y’all should really stop conflating tar with asphalt though. The terms are related but not always interchangeable.) Whitespace is pathetic. Even the article itself has a white backgro…

That's exactly my impression. The lunatics driving this mad train of hate over fields they have no expertise in whatsoever are conflating things left and right that are denoting different concepts who aren't interchangeable.

Reminds me of that woman who forced the change of master branch into main at github while posing as a "programmer" or "security researcher". I looked into her profile, only PRs for typos in documentation or cruft like that. No serious contribution. Only hate.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#673

Post by dahfizz »

> Instead of 'handicap parking', use 'accessible parking'

This is just insane. What is wrong with 'handicap parking'? 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. Its only accessible for the handicapped!

This is the perfect example of the euphemism treadmill. We started with terms like 'invalid' and 'cripple'. But over time, these labels are perceived negatively. So we move to 'handicap'. And now 'handicap' is offensive, so we come up with a new label. As if agonizing over what to label handicapped people makes their condition any better.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#674

Post by ModernMech »

bartread wrote: post #624
imgabe wrote: post #555

I reject the notion that anyone hearing or reading a word from this list could possibly experience anything properly categorized as "harm". This is what's known in the sports world as "flopping" - feigning an injury to elicit a penalty on the other team. Except academia has taken it even further. You don't even need to pretend that you're the one injured. You can make up an imaginary person and pretend they are injur…

Here's one of many such egregious examples: > committed suicide > died by suicide > Ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions. I had a friend commit suicide, and one of my mum's colleagues - also an acquiantance of mine, who I'd chat with in the pub semi-regularly - also committed suicide many years ago. I've suffered with depression for much of my life since my…

No post body was provided.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#677

Post by pfortuny »

dahfizz wrote: post #673

> Instead of 'handicap parking', use 'accessible parking' This is just insane. What is wrong with 'handicap parking'? 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. Its only accessible for the handicapped! This is the perfect example of the euphemism treadmill. We started with terms like 'invalid' and 'cripple'. But over time, these labels are perceived negatively. So we move to 'handicap'. And now 'handicap'…

As opposed to inaccessible parking it is very clear: you can reach it. The fact that a handicapped person cannot reach it seems irrelevant.

Totally bonkers.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#678

Post by TexanFeller »

I grew up in an extreme right wing religious fundamentalist household. My mother wouldn't say the word "fart" because it was deemed offensive. I remember the religious right trying to ban offensive words from broadcast media and my mother going to extreme lengths to otherwise ensure I didn't hear such words. There were lots of PG movies I was not even allowed to watch as a teenager. These efforts were rightly and widely mocked. It's both amusing and terrifying to watch the progressive left go down the same ridiculous paths that the extreme right did not that long ago.

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#679

Post by swayvil »

The victim is always considered to be morally superior.

Therefore step 1 in any "public battle of words" is to spin the narrative to cast yourself as the victim.

And if you can't manage that then find or invent a victim and rush to his defense. Because whoever defends the victim is also morally superior.

(I wonder who's the more morally superior, the victim or the defender-of-victim. I'm thinking the defender. There is an implied authority.)

Re: Stanford's “Elimination of Harmful Language” Initiative

#680

Post by himinlomax »

midasz wrote: post #532

Serious question, and maybe this is ignorant because I do not have an academic background but: Are these people not just a vocal minority? And if so, who cares? It seems like the internet is always up in arms about woke-ism but I honestly don't notice much of it in my daily life. At work, sure there are rules and regulations, but they make sense. Treat people with respect is always my default stance. If I make an ass…

> Are these people not just a vocal minority?

Productive professors and administrators are very busy with doing research, teaching and taking care the students and try to avoid political bullshit like the plague. That leaves busybody with nothing better to do plenty of time to come up with such initiatives.

Post reply on HN